Prisoner's Rights to Artificial Insemination
The question of whether to allow prisoners to have access to artificial insemination has been a controversial one. The debate has raged over whether the right to reproduce is lost at the prison gates.
Other People Are Reading
-
Factors
-
When prisoners have sought the right to artificial insemination, they have argued that it is within their rights to procreate and start a family. The main issues of controversy have been reproductive autonomy, the role of the state in family life, human rights and the purposes and nature of punishment. However, courts have also taken into account the rights of the unconceived child and how its life would be affected if one or both parents are incarcerated or the parents have violent behavior.
History
-
In 1942, Skinner v. Oklahoma determined that prisoners cannot be forced into surgical sterilization, thus ending their chances of procreating once released. However, Goodwin v. Turner, in 1988, determined that "[a]rtificial insemination, as a method of begetting a child, [fell] within [the] realm of unavailable 'incidents
of marriage.'" The court determined that marriage is restricted in regard to its physical aspects once one or both partners become incarcerated and the right to procreate is lost at incarceration.
-
Policy Considerations
-
Some of the reasons cited by the court for prohibiting prisoners' procreation include rehabilitation, deterrence and isolation, which make procreation inconsistent with imprisonment. The court reasoned that prisoners should have adequate time to potentially be rehabilitated before having children to help prevent children from being raised in troubled households, and also the court took into account that the child would potentially see little of a parent incarcerated for life and suffer the void an absent parent would leave.
-
References
- Photo Credit child image by DXfoto.com from Fotolia.com
